skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Dem plan for $3 trillion in new coronavirus aid is too costly – States must cut spending
By Chris Edwards of Cato.
"A proposal by House Democrats announced Tuesday to spend over $3 trillion more to deal with the impact of the coronavirus pandemic
would send the federal deficit skyrocketing and place an enormous
burden on taxpayers to fund. This is why it drew immediate objections
from Republicans.
The Democratic proposal, which was announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
of California, comes on top of earlier massive spending as part of the
nation’s coronavirus response, including the $2.2 trillion CARES Act
approved by Congress and signed into law in March by President Trump.
The
new Democratic proposal includes about $1 trillion for state, local and
tribal governments, Fox News reported, along with a new round of $1,200
in stimulus payments to most Americans.
The
proposal would also continue $600 in extra weekly unemployment
insurance benefits through January, set aside $175 billion to subsidize
rent and mortgage payments, and suspend student loan payments through
September.
The federal aid already approved is generous and the
additional $3 trillion in spending is more than we can afford. Uncle Sam
does not have an unlimited amount of cash and should not borrow
unlimited amounts.
The federal government is already aiding state health, education, and
unemployment systems while offering the states emergency loans. But the
states are not subdivisions of the federal government. They should
tackle their budget challenges by tapping rainy day funds, furloughing
nonessential workers, and cutting low-priority programs.
Supporters of additional federal spending seem to think that states
are feeble and unable to fend for themselves. But the states have
powerful tax bases, rainy day funds, and a large ability to borrow.
Local governments are wards of state governments, not the federal
government.
We need to remember that federal spending is not a
free lunch. It will require more borrowing and thus higher federal taxes
down the road – taxes that will ultimately land on residents of the 50
states.
Congress has already provided about $300 billion in aid to
the states. In addition, the Federal Reserve has created a “municipal
liquidity facility” to lend money to cash-strapped governments. On top
of this, state unemployment insurance systems can tap the federal
government for loans. That is enough federal aid.
Congress bailed out the states during the recession a decade ago, yet
in the end state and local tax revenues fell just 5 percent in 2009
before resuming growth, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data. State-only tax revenues fell 10 percent in 2009 before resuming growth.
If
the revenue dip during the current crisis is similar, states can handle
it with the aid they’ve already received and their own budget actions.
States can delay less-critical spending, such as highway construction,
and they can furlough nonessential workers, as many businesses have
done.
Half of all state-local spending is for employee compensation, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data, which means that furloughs can save a lot of money.
Democratic
and Republican supporters of additional federal aid are using the
Washington Monument strategy – that is, claiming that high-profile or
critical local services are at risk.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., recently argued: “The tax revenue necessary
to pay for police, fire, sanitation and airport ground crews is not
there. Once these workers are laid off, there is no one to provide
essential services to support employers and homeowners.”
But those three critical services – police, fire and sanitation – account for just 7 percent of state and local government budgets. Why not trim the less-critical 93 percent instead?
Cassidy
mentions “airport ground crews.” But why not furlough some of those
workers since airport traffic is down? And why not cut urban transit,
since demand is in decline?
Certainly, states should not be increasing their budgets, as Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf wants to do.
More
federal aid would also create bad incentives. It would encourage state
leaders to extend shutdowns, which are inflicting huge pain on the
private sector.
As tax revenues dip from shutdowns, governments
will have to tighten their belts along with the private sector, and that
will create a good incentive for politicians to reopen the economy.
Longer-term
incentives are also important. Because states need to balance their
budgets, they are supposed to build rainy day funds during the boom
years to cover revenue losses during the bust years. Rainy day fund
balances today are higher than before the recession a decade ago, which is good news.
However, rainy day funds vary from more
than 10 percent of annual spending in 18 responsible states to less
than 5 percent in 12 irresponsible states. New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Illinois and Kansas have saved virtually nothing. The more that the
federal government bails out states during crises, the less responsible
states will be in the future.
Some states are facing particularly
steep revenue drops during this crisis, particularly energy-producing
states. But many of those states – including Wyoming, Alaska and North
Dakota –knew their vulnerability, planned ahead, and have amassed large
rainy day funds.
California lawmakers know that the state’s budget
is highly dependent on volatile income tax revenues, and they also
built a substantial rainy day fund.
Going
forward, another solution is for states to rely less on volatile income
taxes and more on stable sales taxes. During the last recession in
2009, state-local income tax revenues fell 15 percent while sales tax revenues fell just 7 percent.
A
final way that states can prepare for recessions is to pay down debt
during booms, which improves credit ratings and creates room to borrow
during crises.
New Jersey Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy wants to issue
debt to close his state’s budget hole, which would have been easier if
the state did not have one of the highest debt loads and worst credit
ratings.
The
coronavirus pandemic and the business shutdowns and stay-at-home orders
could not have been foreseen by federal, state and local government
officials. But emergencies sometimes arise without warning and it is the
job of government officials to deal with them.
State governments
have already received a record level of federal aid to cope with the
pandemic and now need to shoulder the responsibility to meet their
remaining needs with their own resources and necessary cuts in
non-essential spending."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.